My post about REBIC brought this commentary from Lewis Guignard. It helps illustrate how interest groups in general, and REBIC in particular, shape public policy. And it raises a provocative point about representatives of interest groups, and the degree to which they should let those personal interests guide their input to the larger, citizen committees.
Guignard, a Libertarian, ran unsuccessfully for county commissioner in 2002 and 2004 and has been a member of Citizens for Effective Government, a low-tax interest group.
Please note, these are his opinions, not mine. Some of the people mentioned disagree with Guignard’s take on things.
From here on down is from Guignard:
Tim Morgan and REBIC – the Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition lobbying group – are an example of how politics work in Charlotte/Mecklenburg. Some years ago the board of county commissioners created the Citizen’s Capital Budget Advisory Committee.
Originally the committee was to make recommendations to the county commissioners on capital budget projects, which include schools, courts, libraries, parks and land banking. Interested citizens apply for a limited number of positions. In the case of the CCBAC the majority of citizens are appointed by the BOCC, while two are chosen by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Board.
Any citizen is qualified to serve. Employment is only considered a factor if a particular type knowledge is needed, so people with connections to advocacy groups are not disqualified. When I was appointed almost 9 years ago, REBIC had a member on the committee. When she resigned another REBIC member, Tim Morgan, was immediately appointed. You might say the REBIC seat changed people, because it may as well have been the same person. Through every committee meeting, you could be sure the only point of view would be what REBIC desired. An “individual” did not exist.
Since then other advocacy groups have worked for their members to be chosen. Are these members concerned about the county as a whole, or only their particular piece? For example, REBIC was very concerned in the late 1990s about the issue of setting aside land for open space. REBIC members at the time [not Morgan] worked hard to reduce the amount of “open space” included in the goals for the 1999 Land Banking bonds.
Two other organizations which have found it useful to have seats on the committee are FLAME, an organization formed in southwest Mecklenburg to advocate for more schools for the southwest, and FUME which does similar work in the north. Michael Murdock of FLAME and Rhonda Lennon of FUME received appointments to the CCBAC. Both sought CCBAC membership to further their advocacy for particular schools.
How appointments of people from advocacy groups affect the working of a committee is shown by a particular instance of the CCBAC. The CCBAC was between project proposals and was taking the time to work on a long-term construction schedule for CMS, a project which could have helped the entire county through some very trying times.
Instead of doing that, Mr. Murdock and Ms. Lennon with the help of others, including Morgan of REBIC, worked to subver the process, and made a recommendation supporting FLAME’s and FUME’s individual position on schools.
Later Mr. Murdock became the chair of the CCBAC, and late last year I had occasion to ask him about why he would subvert the process when the opportunity to help the whole county was available. His answer was: “I got my school didn’t I?”
(Murdock phoned this afternoon to say his memory of the discussion with Guignard differed. He says Guignard didn’t ask “Why did you subvert the process?” and that Murdock’s remark took place during a general discussion on election night about advocacy groups FUME and FLAME. The quote was right, Murdock says, but it was ripped from its context.)
Expand this thought process to the many involved in government, including REBIC, the various Chambers, and other advocacy groups and you will understand that our problem of government is that so many people use it to further their personal goals.